Delhi

StateCommission

CC/270/2014

VIVEK SHRIVASTAVA - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNITECH LTD. & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

13 Feb 2019

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments : 13.02.2019

Date of Decision : 15.02.2019

COMPLAINT NO.270/2014

In the matter of:

 

Vivek Shrivastava,

Late Shri V.B. Shrivastava,

C-44, Z-3, Dilshad Garden,

New zdelhi-110095.………Complainant

 

 

Versus

 

1. Unitech Ltd.,

Registered Office at

6 Communityu Centre, Saket,

New Delhi……..Opposite Party No.1

 

2. M/s. Pioneer Profin Ltd.,

Having its registered office at

A-22, 3^rd Floor, Green park,

Aurobindo Marg,

New Delhi-110016.……..Opposite Party No.2

 

 

CORAM

Hon’ble Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                      Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                           Yes/No

Shri O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

JUDGEMENT

 

1. The short question involved the case is regarding penalty for delayed possession. Complainant had already got possession of apartment no.602, Block-06 having super area of 273.04 sq. meter at Nirwana Country, Gurgaon, Haryana. The cost of the flat was Rs.71,71,456/-. Possession was to be delivered by August, 2007. Agreement to sell provided penalty for delayed possession @5/- per sq. ft. per month. The possession was offered only on 31.10.12 i.e. after inordinate delay of more than 5 years. OP adjusted the agreed amount of penalty for delayed possession @5/- per sq. ft. per month amounting to Rs.9 lakhs approximately  in final payment.
2. According to complainant he lived in constant stress and fear and suffered damages to the tune of Rs.25 lakhs. He visited OP several times to pay damages for undue delay but OP refused. He has claimed Rs.25 lakhs alongwith interest @24% per annum.
3. OP has filed WS raising preliminary objections that after obtaining possession, complainant is stopped from claiming any compensation on any ground. He has already received compensation of Rs.9,25,600/- without any demur, objections or protest of any kind for delay in completion of project, as agreed under the agreement to sell. The allottee is bound by terms and conditions of allotment letter as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Puda vs. Shabnam Virk II (2006) CPJ 1 and Bharathi Knitting Company vs. DHL Worldwide Express II (1996) CPJ 25. The complainant is not a consumer as he is residing in Dilshad Garden, Delhi and not using the apartment for self residence. Compensation can be quantified only on rational base and on consideration of documentary and / or oral evidence produced showing extent of loss suffered as per decision of National Commission in Usha India ltd vs. State Estate Management I (2005) CPJ 43.
4. The complainant filed rejoinder and his own affidavit in evidence. As compared to it the OP filed affidavit of Ms. Ritu Jain, AR.
5. The complainant has filed written arguments. OP has also filed written arguments. The OP raised objection of territorial jurisdiction also in the written arguments based upon decision of National Commission in Raja Ram Corn Producers Punjab Ltd. vs Surya Kant Nitin Kumar (1996) I CPJ 233 laying down that complainants residence  is not relevant consideration for territorial jurisdiction.
6. I have gone through the material on record and heard arguments. The counsel for the complainant relied upon decision of National Commission in Satish kumar Pandey vs. Unitech Ltd III (2015) CPJ 440 and CC no.315/14 titled as Pradip Narula vs. Granite Gate Properties Pvt. Ltd. decided on 23.08.16 in which it was held that agreement providing for a meagre penalty of Rs.5 per sq. ft. per month which comes due to approximately 2-3% per annum is unfair.
7. Having gone through the material on record and heard the arguments. I am of the opinion that a further compensation of Rs.9 lakhs would be sufficient. Accordingly the OP is directed to pay Rs.9 lakhs as compensation within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order.
8. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
9. File be consigned to record room.

 

 

 

(O.P. GUPTA)                                                   

   MEMBER (JUDICIAL)